Truth be told, many people who support Romney think he is being too soft with Obama, and people will think or call you a racist if you disagree with the radical leftist Obama.
Just like many radical leftist/socialists/progressives think Obama isn't radical enough in his wealth redistribution
To see who Obama really is watch the film, 2016 Obama's America. Romney needs to attack Obama on WHY Obama does the things he does. At heart Obama is a long term educated trained radical leftist with a good con man's smile and mannerisms.

The problem for Mitt is that his name has become synonymous with "gaffe" &/or "blunder". He has also been successfully been defined as rich, uncaring and out of touch by the Obama team. However, that image may just be accurate...

Even GOP pundits realize that writing off 47% of potential voters or readers, is pretty much a losing bet when your party now has 25% who claim devotion; many of whom see themselves at some point as a member of that robustly described contingent. This is what happens when their talking points discussed in every meeting under the cone of silence, get repeated aloud outside the committee rooms. So even though mathematics has been discarded by GOP, along with science, history, facts, details, and logical thought, they should have still realized that 47 is a big number, though not quite half of the 99%.
And they should have chosen a human candidate.

I'm not sure that the infamous 47% comment is as harmful to Romney as everyone assumes. Here in the South, many Republican voters automatically exclude themselves from the moocher class, regardless of their own economic or personal circumstances. The people they envision when listening to Republican rants about welfare and takers versus producers are non-white people. Not themselves, but others. If they themselves don't happen to pay any income tax, it's because black and brown people have stolen all the good jobs. If black and brown people (and the more egregious white trash types) don't pay income tax, it's because they're lazy parasites.

So what would you have him do Mary? Because it would just be so easy to stop the Muslim world from doing as it pleases, right? Because America is just so great and can control other peoples and their countries, right? He could invade them like Bush did and teach them a lesson...wait, that's not how it turned out did it?

Instead of commenting on the article, you attempt to deflect the criticism away from Romney and towards Obama. The significant difference being that Obama does not control everything that happens in the Muslim world (he is at best an indirect influence, something the US has always been) while Romney has complete control over the gaffes that never cease to come out of his mouth.

I love you people who make me laugh by your lack of understanding of the world.

So what would you have him do Mary? Because it would just be so easy to stop the Muslim world from doing as it pleases, right? Because America is just so great and can control other peoples and their countries, right? He could invade them like Bush did and teach them a lesson...wait, that's not how it turned out did it?

Instead of commenting on the article, you attempt to deflect the criticism away from Romney and towards Obama. The significant difference being that Obama does not control everything that happens in the Muslim world (he is at best an indirect influence, something the US has always been) while Romney has complete control over the gaffes that never cease to come out of his mouth.

I love you people who make me laugh by your lack of understanding of the world.

What would you do Mr. Castrati? I bet you can't wait for the radical Muslim terrorists to start more bombing all over Europe again. Because they will.
I know Obama's good friend Bill Ayers, the US leftist terrorist and Kim Kardashian, would go on Oprah and visit Jay-Z for publicity and cash, So that is what Obama did.
Obama blames the rioting on a film almost no on saw. It was a terrorist act and should be treated as such. So President Kardashian just keeps lying to everyone while his staff corrects and contradicts him and The White House media, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS go along with the charade.

Oh Mary, the Muslim world truly started exploding some time ago. When we invaded Iraq in response to 9/11 (what a joke - AL Qaeda wasn't there!), that started the dominoes falling. After that, you got the Arab Spring and calls to overthrow dictators... mostly by religious fundamentalist societies. So this latest issue with the movie is just one of so many things the fundamentalist Muslim world will react to... Get use to it.

PS... Fundamentalism, whether Muslim or Christian or any other religion, is ignorant, backward, and dangerous. We need to tell our own religious whackos (primarily in the conservative south and midwest) to read a little more and progress and open their minds!

No, you are 100% wrong. Blowing up kids with bombs strapped to them is dangerous, putting car bombs in London is dangerous, Socialism is dangerous. Having a King start his own denomination of Christianity is dangerous. Radical Islamo Fascism is dangerous.
It's actually the Leftists who are the most dangerous and violent. Just ask survivors of the Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin regimes.

Um... Hitler was a righwing nationalist who had plenty of big-business fans right here in the USA who supported him, Mary. And you need to remember that during the 60s and 70s there were PLENTY of rightwing death squads. Radical on either side (eg., KKK, skinheads, clinic bombers, anti-government bombers, etc - - all righties by the way) is wrong. OPEN YOUR MIND!

100% wrong again. Hitler was a Left Wing Radical Socialist. aka National Socialist Party aka the Nazi's . I know the liberal media likes to portray them as right wingers because most are uninformed dopes who believe all the teleprompter readers say.
No almost 100% were left wing radical nut jobs who were communist agitator brainwashees

And it is funny that you say I can't wait for Muslims to start bombing Europe....because the vast majority of my family lives in Europe and I go there quite often. So yes I am totally for radical sociopaths to bomb the place.

Did you see the Norwegian Christian who massacred people in Europe? It is not Muslims. It is sociopaths.

My point is Obama can't just flip a switch and make people in those countries do what he wants (or what you want). I know that is hard for you to understand, but it is a changing world and you should start to get used to it.

As for the idea that Obama lied about it...the majority of the protest was towards the video (just like the majority of the protests happening in Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and elsewhere are in response to the video. There was a small group of terrorists who took advantage of the timing and attacked a US consulate. Since intelligence on the ground in Libya is limited (again something you probably struggler to get your head around), this wasn't known right away. So the only facts Obama had were the video and the protests. When he later found out that terrorists were involved, he announced it. Your question seems to be why would he use facts. Figures you are a Republican.

Obama got Osama. I am sure he will get these people without invading another country (which we can't afford, especially not Iran).

Finally, it is nice of you to condemn the video, rather than stick you head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen.

Wow! He moved the speech in doors because of the chance of poor weather. You know it is a shame because you make some other great points of contention, but like most conservatives you can't risk the temptation to go along with Fox News conspiracies like the idea that the President of the USA can't fill up a football stadium.

But to get to your other points, I blame the credit downgrade, the unemployment, and the debt on the Republicans (not that the credit ratings agencies are any good at what they do anyway). I think the Afghanistan comparison is absurd since it was a Republican who started that war. I don't know this as a fact but I am sure the declining number of democratic voters reflects the successful implementation of the GOP's newest political strategy: voter suppression. And I think predicting an election off of movie and book receipts is probably very inaccurate. The Presidency is an issue that attracts more people than the average piece of entertainment, especially when you have a bunch of pundits calling Obama a Muslim, socialist, or any other term that they use in a derogatory sense (though I don't see why in a nation of freedom of religion we can't tolerate Muslims).

I want to ask the same question...why does everyone seem to think Obama is going to win? Well everyday I get my answer from conservatives like you...because the other side is out of touch with reality.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - An east Arkansas lawmaker has resigned his seat a week after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit election fraud.

Rep. Hudson Hallum submitted his resignation letter Wednesday to Gov. Mike Beebe's office. Hallum pleaded guilty in federal court last week along with his father and two campaign workers. Hallum and the others said in court they participated in a conspiracy to bribe voters to influence the outcome of special elections held last year in Arkansas House District 54.

Hallum, a Democrat, was elected to the office last year in a special election. In the one paragraph letter, Hallum wrote that his resignation would be effective at noon Wednesday and did not mention the guilty plea.

Someone help me with this: back in July, there was a flurry of speculation that Mitt Romney availed himself of the Swiss Bank Account Amnesty extended in 2009 to wealthy Americans who had "failed to report" their offshore Swiss earnings, as required by the tax code. I never saw the issue laid to rest, but it just kind of went away. Is this no longer considered one of the likely reasons Mitt refuses, despite all the political grief he's getting, to release his tax returns?

You people! Stop it! If Mittens discloses his tax returns, you will just use it as ammunition! Now reach over and roll down the window in 3F so I can get a little fresh air in this stuffy plane.
Tax evasion is likely the least of his concerns as he claimed he and Ann lived in his son's basement in Boston in 2009 so he could be eligible to run for Governor of Mass. And I believe voter fraud is the more serious crime, a felony, if he signed his tax return claiming a different primary address in 2009. And if any of you believe a man that owns 7 extremely large homes in very beautiful places is going to live in his son's basement, there is a big clock in London I'd like to sell you....

Romney was off a little, it wasn't 47% of workers who don't pay Federal Taxes, it's 49% who don't. Obama has Billionaire Soros for unlimited media money to slant the current narrative to take the focus off what a total economic and social disaster Obama is.
Obama had total vote control over the house senate and he blew his wad on the health care disaster that will destroy the best system ever
The major media in the U.S. is SO FAR LOPSIDED to the left, they even admit it. They cannot put out a truthful story half the time and what is worse is they will not tell the truth about Obama's lies or rarely question him
Here is a list of obama's lies look it up at - obamaslies dot net

"Tell that to a Canadian."
I know many Canadians. Many times they have to WAIT 6 months or longer to get an x-ray or simple surgery for Socialist Care.
Tell me how long Brit's have to wait for their financially strapped rationed socialist care system.

US healthcare is far and away the BEST health care system ever. That is why people from all over the world come here.
Not perfect, not the cheapest. just the best overall ever.

"Also, it's not true that 47% of "workers" don't pay federal income taxes. The figure quoted was households. Big difference."

You are right - it is a big difference, It's far worse than most know. 49% of households don't pay Federal taxes.
(disingenuous is code word for liar)
Obama had everything to do with it. TOTAL control for two long disastrous years. He kept Bush's tax cuts on the books, WHY ? Then he blames everything on Bush.

John, It isn't good to be hiding in a socialist ivory tower telling others that a radical activist agitator smooth talking con man like obama is doing a good job, when he is really destroying a country.

Mary, it is 46.4% who don't pay federal income tax, but the majority of those pay payroll, state and city taxes. Most are working Americans.

How could America have the best health care system in the world when 50 million Americans have no health insurance? How can America have the best health care system in the world when the cost is more than twice as much and the outcomes one of the worst in the developed world? A much greater percentage of Canadians and Brits favor their health care system than do Americans. They might wait longer for elective care, but not care that is needed. And only a small number of those who can afford it, and who want to be seen by a specialist, might be crossing the border to get care here, but there aren't that many. We have Islands of excellence in a sea of mediocrity, or worse, when it comes to our health care.

We are the only country in the developed world that doesn't have universal health care. We are the only country in the developed world that adds the worry of going broke and losing a home when sick or hurt? And we have the best health care system in the world?

You know what state has the best health care results in the country? Massachusetts, where 98% of adults are covered and 99% of children are covered, and the outcomes are far better than any other state.

You are so wrong about so many of the things you have commented about, but I'm sure nothing will ever change your thinking, so have a good day.

you have no clue what you are talking about, sorry I live here
Everyone in the US has health care.
NO ONE is turned away at a hospital, period.
Nothing is free. Except in a Socialist Utopian world
Canadians hate the system they are under duress in and stressed out by paying for government bureaucrats who suck the money out of it

Where is "here"? Canada? If so, what makes you think you know anything about the U.S. health care system if you haven't lived it? If you live in the U.S., than you really don't know what you're talking about. You think someone without health insurance has the financial wherewithal or compunction to receive the same preventative health care as those with health insurance? Do you think depending on the ER is good health care when that necessitates going after the fact, and having to deal with all the emergency patients surrounding the area? Have you ever been to an ER facility in an American city? And, if you are from the U.S., I suggest you learn more about the Canadian system and their better quality results than the U.S., and the approval rate of Canadians about their system compared to here.

What kind of name is zAZsJCEgy6 ?? Are you a member of the communist party ?
Obvious wealthy people can afford better of everything.
Canadian health care system is a joke, like England's. That is why Canadians who can afford it go to the US for excellent health care and GET IT FAST. Not wait for some dope in government to permit you to use their services. You really need to face reality of the crappy service Canadians get. They get taxes to hell for crappy service, how nice.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.

Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.

While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.

There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.

Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is. Overall, the number of Canadians coming to the U.S. for healthcare is vanishingly small. It's a myth.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.

Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Additionally it is true initially no one turned away from the hospital when brought in for emergency care, even people without healthcare or the means to pay for it, meaning this was "free."

This is why Obama's universal health care system was originally a conservative idea championed by the conservative Heritage Group, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney at various times, in order to eliminate the free riders from the system. All three only came out against it after Obama proposed it, why? Because if Obama thinks it it must be socialism.

Perhaps some leaders from the third-world. I guess it comes down to how you differ from the facts when you define the word BEST. And, I'm sure all those millions of Americans who are dependent upon and receive their health care in emergency rooms would disagree with you. But, what do they know?

I have been having more and more of these conversations with people like Mary that leave in a conservative media bubble. As the election approached the cognitive dissonance increases leading to increased paranoia, anger and intransigence.

Its quite scary actually. The real question is what will happen post election when the "truths" they have been clinging to (see unskewedpolls dot com) disappear. It worries me greatly.

I have been having more and more of these conversations with people like Mary that leave in a conservative media bubble. As the election approached the cognitive dissonance increases leading to increased paranoia, anger and intransigence.

Its quite scary actually. The real question is what will happen post election when the "truths" they have been clinging to (see unskewedpolls dot com) disappear. It worries me greatly.

I have been having more and more of these conversations with people like Mary that leave in a conservative media bubble. As the election approached the cognitive dissonance increases leading to increased paranoia, anger and intransigence.

Its quite scary actually. The real question is what will happen post election when the "truths" they have been clinging to (see unskewedpolls dot com) disappear. It worries me greatly.

I have been having more and more of these conversations with people like Mary that leave in a conservative media bubble. As the election approached the cognitive dissonance increases leading to increased paranoia, anger and intransigence.

Its quite scary actually. The real question is what will happen post election when the "truths" they have been clinging to (see unskewedpolls dot com) disappear. It worries me greatly.

I have been having more and more of these conversations with people like Mary that leave in a conservative media bubble. As the election approached the cognitive dissonance increases leading to increased paranoia, anger and intransigence.

Its quite scary actually. The real question is what will happen post election when the "truths" they have been clinging to (see unskewedpolls dot com) disappear. It worries me greatly.

In the absence of supporting arguements, such remarks as "BEST health care system ever" are plain arrogance. Inteligent People (Nations - it is not personal here) devise observable bench marks to compare effectiveness of their policies, based on universally agreed upon standards, examine data, make objective analysis, befor making colclusions and decisions.

Dear Mary it is better to wait than to seek satisfaction in instent gratification, particularly for non essential services. I would gladly conceed that US has excellent Doctors, Hospitals and research facilities. However the privately run system, driven by profits and greed, is very costly and fraught with wasteful abuse. You can easily compare cost of standard medican services to make your own colclusions.

More importantly, I invite you to look at the mortality rate between most civilized countries to reassess your defence of US healthcare system. I may also suggest you to watch the documentary by Fareed Zakari, which was shown on CNN.

Please do visit Canada some day. While we are NOT perfect or the BEST EVER,it is peaceful and people are generaliry HAPPY.

Please people, don't you see that she's only trolling?
Everybody with a little sense sees the flaws in the US health care system. And although other western systems aren't flawless themselves (I know, I'm a primary care physician in the Netherlands) they are a whole lot better than the US system.

Once again Mary, I see that you are confusing between some of the best healthcare facilities in US with health care system. Sick people (leaders or rich people from around the world), go to other countries like Germany, England, France, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, Russia, and South Africa and YES of course US.

Except in US you many never hear about it.

There are many sick people from US, privately or paid for by private insurance companies, who are travelling to India and China for treatments. They will gladly go to Cuba to receive affordable health care instead of going bankrupt. Remember Mr. Moore's documentary - Sicko! Go figure.

(how many times did you post the same thing)
Obama would never have been elected if he told the truth about socializing health care and creating government death panels. Obama lies to the US everyday and the Media cover for him and they alter the poll results.

Romney is going to win, no question about it.

The media, Hollywood, in the US does nothing but criticize Romney and support Obama

You can always point out a few people here and there about any issue, typical liberal Alinsky tactic. I have a friend who went to Ecuador for treatment, so what.
The US is free to go anywhere they want, only the commie elites in Cuba get the best care.
I know it's tough to take when you have been brainwashed by your government all your life to believe that what you have is the best.
Except the UK does have the best dental care system, I'll give you guys that.

Oh, your right The UK's health system is the best ever and always has been. Just ask all the mental patients who were tortured.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, -Albert Einstein

What is scary is that people think that a marxist Ideologue (Obama)who has destroyed the US for almost four years will do better next time. Socialism/Communism/Marxism/Progressivism always fails in the long run.

Hey Mary, I don't want to pay for your health care, that's why I think everyone needs health insurance. If you don't have health insurance and you go to the emergency room and are treated, who pays for that? Me, that's who. So unless you think emergency rooms should turn away uninsured people and let them die, you are a "socialist/communist/marxist".

Also, you may want to learn the definitions of the words you use. Marxism/Socialism/Communism refers to a system in which the workers control the means of production. That means that the workers LITERALLY own the factory. There is no CEO. If someone is to be fired, it goes to a vote of the workers, ie his friends. That's why communism doesn't work in reality.

When you say "communism" I guess you mean a progressive tax rate, where the rich pay (or are supposed to) a higher tax rate than the poor. i.e. not a flat tax. So under your completely invented definition of "communism", then yes, Obama is a Communist. Then again, so was Ronald Reagan. Your hero favored a progressive tax, look it up.

I don't blame you--the words sound so compelling coming out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Much less so from you though, I'm afraid.

I didn't say it was FREE FREE FREE, did I ? No I didn't
How IS IT Socialism ???
Ponder this:
Why force everyone to buy something people don't want ? That is the question. Why tax everyone for a service they don't need?
I would rather be Free To Choose than ruled under a socialist dictate.

Congratulations to you, Mary, for being the mouthpiece for intolerance, ignorance, racism, anti-intelligence, anti-science, etc. You and your fellow tea baggers should be proud of your hate for things you don't understand!
Now, do what you do best, keep throwing out those buzz words like COMMIE and SOCIALIST. I bet Mary has a picture of Joe McCarthy right above her fireplace mantel!

Mary: SOCIALISM................... SOCIALISM..................SOCIALISM......... WE NEVER LANDED ON THE MOON!............. OBAMA WANTS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION ALL ON HIS OWN TO TAKE YOUR GUNS.................... SOCIALISM...

Using examples from the Vietnam conflict that dates nearly 50 years ago as being somehow relevant to the 2012 election cycle does more to reveal your reporter's "idea fixe" from his early reporting daze (sic) than contribute any modern insight of use.

Admittedly the left-leaning media has gone ga-ga over Obama and has abandoned any semblance of balanced reporting. Between this sort of media cartoon reporting and the smothering Truth Squad goonies the Obama campaign has deployed this has been one of the worst elections in terms of media coverage. E.g - did the public ever hear that Obama went 19 years without paying his parking fines till 2007? No? Or that Pelosi, Reid, or Barney indeed the vast majority of elected officials have never released their tax returns?
No? The Obama gaffe of claiming there are 57 U.S. states? No? I will not be renewing my Economist subscription precisely because of these reasons. I voted for Obama last time, but he has deeply disappointed me, yes lied to me. And your magazine has failed to call him on it. Shame on you!

Sour Realist obvious does not have a Fox News or Wall Street Journal subscription - but then again they are hardly going ga-ga over Romney. Something we don't know about?
Maybe cancelling your Economist subscription is a good thing - after all we wouldn't want you thinking when you are reading.

Mojos maybe you should research the requirements for running for presidential office. If you had then you would know there is ZERO requirement to to release you taxes.

If you were paying attention you also might have observed some interesting events. Romney accepted ZERO in compensation while serving as Governor of Massachusetts. Pelosi, Reid, and Barney by contrast have strangely in their many decades in public office added many ZEROS to their personal wealth.

My Economist subscription only has a month left so I'll let it expire rather than cancel, which I did do after a single issue of TIME.

Apparently the Ashram where you grew up did not give much empahsis to education, specifically reading. I wrote "the left-leaning media" and you replied "obvious does not have a Fox News or Wall Street Journal subscription."

*Sigh* I do not believe Fox News requires subscription, nor do I think of Fox as an example of left-leaning media. And yes I do have a subscription to the WSJ, but again I do not think of them as left-leaning media.

So perhaps we can agree you are a very lazy Truth Squader? In any case you closing words "after all we wouldn't want you thinking when you are reading." gave me a very good chuckle indeed. Are all Obama Truth Squaders as clever as that?

If you weren't aware it was Romney's father himself who started the tradition of releasing years and years of tax returns saying the American people had the right to know about a Presidential candidates finances and the two years you were running for office was woefully insufficient in accomplishing that... but I guess 20 year old parking tickets are more important to you.

There is also no requirement to release your birth certificate or college transcripts but since there is a black candidate with a funny name Republicans have no problem demanding to see them. The double standard from the right is honestly absurd.

This last Monday's letter to the editor I think sums up this type of anti-Romney media-biased reporting very well. Enjoy.

Tax return column flunks fairness test

Re: James Hamill column mentioning Romney tax returns:

Where is the balance? By selectively focusing your column only on Mitt Romney, you do yourself and the readers of the Albuquerque Journal harm.

Try harder, or you risk becoming the cartoon of news like sadly is the case with MSNBC.

“(Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi)…are among hundreds of senators and representatives from both parties who refused to release their tax records. Just 17 out of the 535 members of Congress released their most recent tax forms or provided some similar documentation of their tax liabilities in response to requests from McClatchy over the last three months. Another 19 replied that they wouldn’t release the information, and the remainder never responded to the query.”

The widespread secrecy in one branch of the government suggests a selfimposed double standard. Yet while American politics has come to expect candidates for the presidency to release their tax returns, the president isn’t alone in having a say over the nation’s tax laws. Congress also stands to gain or lose by the very tax policies it enacts, and tax records ... offer the chance to see whether the leaders of the government stand to benefit from their own actions …

To Pelosi and some other top Democrats, the focus is on Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, who’s released his 2010 return and 2011 estimates and plans to release his 2011 return when it’s completed, but refuses to release any more. They say the very refusal to release more suggests that he’s hiding something.

“He could not even become a Cabinet member for that lack of disclosure, and now with that lack of disclosure he wants to be president of the United States,” said Pelosi, the House minority leader, who’s from California.

Apparently, though, he could become speaker of the House or Senate majority leader.

Romney’s defense has been that he’s released everything he’s required to, and more—and funny thing, that’s the defense of Pelosi and Reid as well. Pelosi, Reid, and (Rep.) Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) refused repeated requests from McClatchy to release their own returns.

What’s required by law is written by Congress itself, a broad financialdisclosure statement that offers no direct information on tax liabilities and no requirement for reporting spousal income other than the source — but not the amount — of any income above $1,000. When it comes to the valuation of investments or reporting of income on the annual disclosure forms, what’s required are broad numbers such as between $250,000 and $500,000 or $1 million and $5 million. That makes it hard to determine how much benefit a lawmaker might get from competing tax plans.

“They just don’t provide the same level of detail as a tax return,” said Darrell West, a specialist on governing and a vice president of the Brookings Institution, a centerleft research center in Washington.

By the way, I am not a neo-con, and I did vote for Obama last election; that is just the first source that provided the details to help you understand how you look like DNC dupes by your lack of balance.

There is a lot of discussion here as to what the GoP will do with respect to picking candidates next time if they lose. My guess is that they will do what they did this time but 'better' - effectively disenfranchise millions of mainly Democratic voters in swing states by bringing in laws that make it harder for them to vote, under the pretext of stopping the pretty well non-existent voter fraud. Which is the state that will allow a gun license to be used as ID at polling booths, but not a photo student card? NRA members 1, educated young Americans 0.

Can't do much better than this toe-to-toe comparison. You see while one team is very, VERY, strong on TALK the other team is strong on ACTION. Can you understand the difference?

When it comes to charitable giving, Mitt Romney is leaving Vice President Joe Biden in the dust, the Weekly Standard reported.

Romney’s 2011 tax returns show he gave more than $4 million to charity last year (about 30 percent of his income) to Biden’s $3,690 (0.2 percent of his income) over the previous ten years when he first ran for vice president, according to the Weekly Standard.

All told, Romney gave a thousand times as much to charity in one year as Biden gave in a decade, according to the Standard. Romney’s charitable giving averaged more than $10,000 a day last year.

The Bidens earned over $2 million over the decade in which they gave $3,690. Their income was $320,000 in 2008.

Romney is very strong on action because he gives a lot to charity? I thought the whole argument was that "handouts" weren't a way to run a government? Maybe even if Romney wins the Medicare beneficiaries aren't screwed after all!

On a more serious note, when the political conversation talks about rhetoric vs action, they usually aren't referring to the candidates charitable giving. That is a matter of personal choice (maybe the only thing me and Dick Cheney agree on; no wait he supports peoples right to choose their own sexual orientation). They are talking about public policy. Obama has introduced several new successful policies during his time in office, and he has announced very detailed plans for what he would do in his second term. Romney admittedly had a successful stunt in office as governor of Massachusetts (funny how many of his policies resembled Obama's policies, especially in healthcare), yet he has yet to give any detailed picture of what his time in office would look like.

I don't know why I am even arguing with you because rather than this being a civil debate I'm sure you hate everything Obama (judging from some of your other posts).

He gave that in a tax return filed in September 2012, less than two months to the election in November. And by his own words: to make sure that his tax rate stayed at least at 13%. Which begs the question: what did he gave (if any) those other years? Whatever Gov. Romney is hiding in those tax returns must be very damaging indeed. And why compare Romney to Pelosi and Reid on matters of presidential tax returns. The appropriate comparisons would be Obama, Mccain, GWB, Kerry or Clinton.

Mitt has the best team of professional PR people that money can buy. Professionals whose ONLY goal is "TO MAKE MITT NOT SUCK". Yet even with all that professional help, help he won't have if elected, he SUCKS. He is like a babe in the woods. This sheltered silver spoon has no F-ing concept of diplomacy, professionalism, or common sense. The logical result of his consequence-free life.

Private school, a mission to Paris instead of Vietnam...and even on the mission he killed his bosses' wife in an "accident" and was sheltered from consequences. Daddy also got him a sweet job chopping up companies, selling the parts, and exporting the jobs. He ran for office by Parroting whatever he thought would get him elected.

He flip flopped whenever convenient. His position on abortion, gay marriage, global warming, medicare, universal healthcare, social security, bailouts, saving the auto industry, Reaganomics, tax pledge, and everything else was contingent only on what would get him elected. All consequence free.

The GOP knew this. That is why they reanimated Gingrich, Cain, Sanitarium, Perry, Bachman and anyone else they could find. Throughout the primaries, the favored candidate was "anyone but that spineless, graceless, unprofessional, self-important douche Romney".

In the end, Mitt got the nod, he spent more money than ALL of his GOP opponents combined. Wall Street and the Citizens United decision combined to give him the nomination.

Despite the FAUX news comedy shows best efforts to pretend the international community prefers Mitty to Obama. Mitty can't keep his foot out of his mouth even with a team of professional handers. It is a function of delusional beliefs - not malapropisms.

He believes his job is to further enrich the 1% at the expense of everyone else. He believes he alone is responsible for his wealth. Daddy and a million privileges had nothing to do with it. He alone is deserving. He is the chosen one and the presidency is just the next step en-route to the God-Planet and all the teen girls he can...

The difference is that no one with this guy's ideology actually gets elected to the Democratic ticket.

Unfortunately, the Republican equivalent of this guy; people who disbelieve in evolution, think Obama is Kenyan, suspect bike paths to be a UN plot, and think HHS office wants to put bullets in the heads of seniors do get elected to the Republican one.

Of course there is no memory either to his frequent use of the words of others:

By August 1987, Biden's campaign, whose messaging was confused due to staff rivalries,[128] had begun to lag behind those of Michael Dukakis and Dick Gephardt,[125] although he had still raised more funds than all candidates but Dukakis, and was seeing an upturn in Iowa polls.[126][129] In September 1987, the campaign ran into trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech that had been made earlier that year by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party.[130] Kinnock’s speech included the lines:

"Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? [Then pointing to his wife in the audience] Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?"

While Biden’s speech included the lines:

"I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? [Then pointing to his wife in the audience] Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest?"

Yes, you sure can pick them and set the bar low for integrity. Stay classy Democrats!

Where was the lie? Billly1977 is free to express his opinions, however derogatory they may be, but it appears his facts are all true. Mitt did outspend all the other candidates. He did flip flop on several key policy areas. He did go to Paris during the Vietnam war.

You know I misread that paragraph the first time through. I thought it had said there was an accident in which someone was killed. He was not at fault. But even then Billy is entitled to believe it was Mitt's fault (I do not endorse that kind of opinion, especially when the majority of the facts are on Mitt's side in that case).

But he didn't lie on the things I mentioned. Thanks for pointing that out though.

" South Vietnamese generals weren't defecting to the enemy when they withheld their divisions from the offensive to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos; they were hedging against the likelihood of defeat. In doing so, they made defeat more likely."
AH more revisionist history. South Vietnamese generals were so busy counting the loot from the heroin they had been selling GI's and the pay and food they stole from their own troops they had no time for fighting. They were mostly interested in planning their escape with their loot.

Rather than trying to parse a metaphor to treason a better one might be of rats deserting a sinking ship.

It seems to me that by concentrating on Romney's short-comings, Republican's and their supporters may miss the larger issuer: that the Republican party has no future as the party of old white men. Their chief demographic is dying out or going senile while democrat demographic grow inexorably in number.

If it is to be relevant in the future except as the party of permanent and increasingly hysterical opposition, they are going to have to find compatible groups who are conservative say in a fiscal sense but are not willing to go all the way with the social agenda.

However the trend seems to be towards emphasizng the social agenda rather than the fiscal one. Oh, they talk about the fiscal one when not in office. But in action their actions go the other way.

You are right that it isn't a viable strategy. Whether it is a viable tactic still remains to be seen. But the evidence suggests that it probably no longer is that either. Still, enough of what remains of the party are sufficiently invested in it that making the change you recommend won't be quick or easy.

Silly Liberals, socialism only works up to the point where you run out of other peoples money. The U.S. is $16 TRILLION in debt now, and thanks to QE3, adding $95 BILLION more debt a month. If you liberals thought this through you would realize being an Obamite is not a good direction for yourselves, if you plan to continue receiving government checks, there has to be money there to cover them.

Compare the latest tax returns of Romney and Obama, both men have their investments in blind trusts (that means professionally managed by the expert(s) of their choice.) Romney still managed to net over $2 MILLION in capital gains. Obama? Yup, he managed to lose 3 thousand dollars on his investments.

So before you so gleefully predict the passing of the GOP maybe you should pause, depart from your Trust Squad talking points, or the guidence your cadre gave you at your last cell tweets, and try to think. If you depend on government benefits, which candidate is most likely to honor those commitments? I'll give you a hint, there is only one wrong answer and it starts with an O!

I'm sorry but quantitative easing does not add to the debt. Its the use of the Feds ability to print money to purchase securities - both US debt and even other securities (such as Mortgage backed securities). It has the potential to be inflationary. Which is interesting because inflation is a tool to combat debt. This is what happened after WWII. We used inflation to drive our gDP/Debt Ratio down dramatically.

No defections since the ill-starred 47% rant?
What Romney said was neither too moderate nor extreme enough to alienate his lukewarm support among the media and pundit classes. Simply being a loser isn't enough to make these folks jump ship to the team that's so far in the lead.

At the core of that gaffe was a deliberate exaggeration that was attempting to highlight false contrast between two candidates highly reluctant to give up any genuine details.

It reminded me of a quip I've heard (perhaps you brilliant folks out there can set me straight?) attributed perhaps falsely to R. Reagan that went something like this; "Mr. Candidate, what are you going to do for black voters?" Candidate responds, "What have black voters ever done for me?"

No matter what Romney promises to Barry O's supporters, even if he were to mobilize all his private equity and hedge fund buddies to endow full scholarships for every black boy and girl, the President would still clean up with >90% of the black vote thanks to the simple fact that he has the right color packaging and passes relatively well for a black guy.

Whatever one thinks of Romney's gaffe, he is doubtlessly correct in his understanding that there is nothing he can do to win the support of certain segments of the electorate. There is however no mistaking the coldness of the populism that he's using to try feed festering outrage and division.

However there is an almost accidental truth to the message. For a certain class of folks who have been living a lifestyle of dependence for many generations, the current system is doing little more than enabling dysfunction. In order to really help these people it will require policies that are very unpopular among that clientele - policies that won't necessarily come cheap. However like a coach who is hard on his athletes, constantly drilling them and whipping them into shape, they won't exactly love him until they win the championship. Alas I regret that Mr. Romney's message about these bits of that 47% is more division and demagogy than of tough love.

Mr. Romney could be so much more if he would just figure out how to put together the strengths of these values that I firmly believe he holds. Expectations of high performance are hardly irreconcilable with love and compassion. I don't blame Mr. Obama's difficulty accomplishing more when he was faced with the obstinate Republican opposition in Congress. Even though I don't know how it would have been possible to work together with a "team" that openly expressed a desire to see the President fail no matter the consequences for the country, that's the nature of that terrible job... a job that Mr. Obama wanted and believed he was up for. Would Mr. Romney be able to do better? I don't know. Perhaps his experience as Governor in Massachusetts with a less than congenial legislature is something that his campaign could emphasize - the ability to get the job done with the team you're given and not with the team that you wish you had.

The Democratic candidate usually gets around 90% of the black vote. (A quick google says Mondale, Dukakis and Gore all got 90%, while Clinton got around 85.) So observing that Obama gets more than 90% of the black vote and attributing it to his race ignores a whole lot of historical voting trends.

I do not expect to hear anything about Mr. Romney's time governing That Place, liberal Massachusetts. He's still stuck catering to the base, and "governor of Massachusetts, worked with the Democrats, even passed first-in-the-nation health insurance reform" is not a base-motivator.

The health insurance reform in Mass is great if you are poor or rich. Those in the middle have been forced into high deductible plans resulting in less preventive care for them. They cannot afford to both go to the doctor and pay for the insurance. It is a redistribution of health care from the middle to the bottom. My doctor tells me that there are hundreds of lower middle class patients needing preventive care that he rarely sees anymore. Funny you never hear a word about it from either side.

Yeah, Ronald Reagan did not say that.
-
As for an actual anecdote about Reagan, when he was running for Governor, he publicly opposed The Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay and lesbians from teaching in California, or even perhaps anyone who supported gay rights. He, more than anyone, was responsible for defeating it.
-
Maybe this quote is apocryphal, but his response to the demands that he support it was the critique, "get the hell out of my office". And of course, it's not like he ever got much support from gay and lesbians, but it was the right thing to do. That's part of the reason he was a great President.

I was enraged by Mitt Romneys comment that 47% of the population could not assume responsibility for their lives. As an African, who has never visited America but who was educated mainly by American missionaries and Peace Corps Volunteers i know that my missionaries, men of integrity and religion would fall within the 47%.These people had no money, they were not the sons of millionaires but they assumed responsibility not only towards their own lives but also towards our lives as secondary school students. Mitt is a rich boy contemptuous of the hot struggles of the hot struggles of the poor . As more and more people discover his actual nature they are likely to defect from his base.

I was enraged by Mitt Romneys comment that 47% of the population could not assume responsibility for their lives. As an African, who has never visited America but who was educated mainly by American missionaries and Peace Corps Volunteers i know that my missionaries, men of integrity and religion would fall within the 47%.These people had no money, they were not the sons of millionaires but they assumed responsibility not only towards their own lives but also towards our lives as secondary school students. Mitt is a rich boy contemptuous of the hot struggles of the poor . As more and more people discover his actual nature they are likely to defect from his base.His millions helped him to get nominated by the Republican Party, but the Republicans, the party of Abraham Lincoln,should do better.

Hmm, "defection" might actually have been, as one presidential candidate puts things, and inelegant choice. Your comparison to soldiers avoiding duty and denigrating the officers during Viet Nam has a certain charm as analogies go. The word "malingering" came to mind, but it also seems a little bit off-- the right-wing pundits aren't feigning injury to avoid supporting the campaign. "Dissociating" is a bit sterile. "Ditch", "doge", or "evade" seem more on track. The pundits are ditching the campagin?